Roo placed on veteran list

[Stiffy_18]

According to Ch10 promo. No real surprise. This gives us pick 40 in the draft.

Expect Hart to be moved on the veteran's list as well which would give us a pre-season pick

 

[macca23]

According to Ch10 promo. No real surprise. This gives us pick 40 in the draft.

Expect Hart to be moved on the veteran's list as well which would give us a pre-season pick

Geez you're quick Stiffy!!

You beat me to the punch as usual!!

Great news about the promotion of Roo to the veteran list. That's a definite 4 picks.

As you say putting Hart on there as well would give the PSD pick as well.

If Stevens doesn't come up, do you think they will still put Hart on the veteran list proper??

 

[Stiffy_18]

If Stevens doesn't come up, do you think they will still put Hart on the veteran list proper??

IMHO, both Roo and Hart will go on the veteran's list proper regardless of what happens with Stevo.

 

[Damp Squarie]

It seems like yesterday that Roo with the crude mullet made his debut.
What a legend; as well as a veteran hes a 3 star general.

 

[Markthirtytwo]

Geez you're quick Stiffy!!

You beat me to the punch as usual!!

Great news about the promotion of Roo to the veteran list. That's a definite 4 picks.

As you say putting Hart on there as well would give the PSD pick as well.

If Stevens doesn't come up, do you think they will still put Hart on the veteran list proper??

Why wouldn't they

Having said that, wouldn't they have done it by now

 

[Markthirtytwo]

It seems like yesterday that Roo with the crude mullet made his debut.
What a legend; as well as a veteran hes a 3 star general.

I'd make him the Field Marshal.

 

[Mad Dog]

Was just a matter of time 'til one of them was listed

I'd love a PSD but hopefully not at the expense of Stevo.....so that may leave vet listing Benny as the only option.....as I've said b4 - I'm sure the club will do the salary cap extrapolations so as not to disadvantage us down the track.

 

[Mad Dog]

It seems like yesterday that Roo with the crude mullet made his debut.
What a legend; as well as a veteran hes a 3 star general.

I'll never forget the job he did on Tony Hall in the '93 Elimination Final....smashed him everytime he went near the ball. It was a good effort for a 17 year old on an AFL Vet. That was Hall's last game for the Hawks.....then we picked him up..

 

[maccas_no1]

Pretty good news, doesnt matter weather he is on the veterns list or the main list he is still far and away our best player

 

[CaptainDangerfield]

What more can you say about him. The guy is an AFC legend.

 

[Lefty]

According to Ch10 promo. No real surprise. This gives us pick 40 in the draft.

Expect Hart to be moved on the veteran's list as well which would give us a pre-season pick

While I agree with Mark Ricciuto being put on the (Outside) Veteran's List I would not put Ben Hart on it.

Two reasons :-

1) It reduces the number of rookies we can have to four. Remember we can only have (Outside) Veterans + Rookies = 6. The more veterans the less rookies. It may look good from the Total Player Payments point of view but Rookies are the club's future. We currently have one rookie already in Rowan Andrews so at the moment we can pick another 4 with Mark Ricciuto on the (Outside) Veteran List. If you put Ben Hart on that same list it reduces your rookies to a total of 4 which limits us to 3 more picks. I, for one, would not be happy with just 4 rookies unless it was done for a particular reason as stated in reason 2).

2) Andrew McLeod is able to go on the Veteran List from 2006 and he would be on a lot more money than Ben Hart surely. With half of McLeod's salary not counted in the Total Player Payments it would be a good time to draft a highly paid gun - Adam Cooney would be the one player I would go hell bent to get for the 2006 season.

You'll note that the poorer clubs (Bulldogs, Kangas, etc) always put their Veterans on the (Outside) Veteran List straight away because they are just concerned with staying solvent. We, as a rich club, shouldn't copy this unless it's to obtain a highly paid superstar.

I'm really happy about utilising pick 40 in the National Draft but I'm sceptical about any pick in the Pre-season Draft. Remember Ben Marsh went at pick 4 in last years Pre-season Draft which is hardly an endorsement for it, is it ?

PLAYERS chosen in last year's AFL pre-season draft:

1. Western Bulldogs: Jade Rawlings (Hawthorn)
2. Carlton: Nick Stevens (Port Adelaide)
3. Melbourne: Phillip Read (West Coast Eagles)
4. Richmond: Ben Marsh (Adelaide)
5. Geelong: Paul Koulouriotis (Port Adelaide)
6. Kangaroos: Shane Harvey (Essendon)
7. Hawthorn: Doug Scott (Box Hill Hawks)
8. Fremantle: Michael Johnson (Perth)
9. Adelaide: Pass
10. Port Adelaide: Jacob Surjan (South Fremantle)
11. Richmond: Luke Weller (Brisbane Lions rookie)
12. Port Adelaide: Josh Mahoney (Williamstown)

As you can see it's pretty light on in terms of natural talent wouldn't you say ?

 

[macca23]

Strategically a very good post lefty. I've alluded to the very same thing a few times without having the patience to put it as clearly and succinctly as you have.

It does come at a cost of course - one less draft pick or no pick in the PSD. If Mark Stevens doesn't make it, then we do get our PSD pick, but miss out on #56 which is certainly not the ends of the earth, as it is compensated to a fair degree by an extra rookie selection.

The real plus is of course the salary cap space for 2006 that it would allow - and the chance to lure a quality player back home.

It's a real possibility IMO.

 

[slappy]

yup agree with your point regarding the PSD

 

[slappy]

question time ... do the clubs that only pay 92.5% of the salary cap have any other restrictions placed on what they can do with the veterans list?

or is it the same deal just with a smaller amount?

 

[Stiffy_18]

I would be pretty ********ed off if we don't put both Roo and Hart on the veteran's list.

Lefty, you want to have all those players on the rookie list but tell me how many rookie listed players make it at the AFL??????

AFC have history of picking up VERY good players int he PSD. So what if we only have 3 rookies to add. CHances are all 3 of those will be shown the door at the end of next year.

People forget that this draft is not very deep and its very even so really rookie list is more gamble than ever before.

I want 4 picks in the ND and 1 pick in the PSD (assuming that Stevo plays on)

Back to CH10 report

Coaches are assigned their roles and they are

Paul Hamilton: Coach of defensive actions of every player. On match day assumes the responsibility for back 6.

David Noble: Coach of attacking actions of every player. On match day assumes the responsibilities for forward 6

Don Pyke: Responsible for creating and overseeing set plays in ruck, midfield, forward line and defence. On match day assumes the responsibilities of midfield group

On the PSD, apparently Crows are after un-named VFL player

 

[Lefty]

question time ... do the clubs that only pay 92.5% of the salary cap have any other restrictions placed on what they can do with the veterans list?

or is it the same deal just with a smaller amount?

Same deal for all clubs I would have thought.

It seems to based on the Veteran's salary from what the AFL site says (see below).

=======================================================

A club will be able to nominate a player to be a veteran if that player has been listed at that club for a minimum of 10 years and is at least 30 years of age in the relevant playing season. A player no longer needs to have turned 30 by January 1 of the relevant season to qualify as a veteran.

Clubs may list any number of eligible veterans, with the number previously restricted to two. The percentage of the veterans’ salaries exempt from the salary cap will be proportional to the number of veterans listed, with the percentage reducing as the number of veterans increases. For 1 or 2 Veterans, 50% of each of their salaries will be outside the TPP, 3 Veterans, 33.3% of each of their payments will be outside the TPP, 4 Veterans, 25% etc; Once placed on the Veteran's List a Player cannot be removed unless delisted.

 

[LiaLovesRoo32]

What more can you say about him. The guy is an AFC legend.

Not just an AFC legend, but an AFL legend

Even non CROWS supporters should agree....well if they are not pig headed and actually know a little about the game that is

 

[dreamkillers]

PLAYERS chosen in last year's AFL pre-season draft:

1. Western Bulldogs: Jade Rawlings (Hawthorn)
2. Carlton: Nick Stevens (Port Adelaide)
3. Melbourne: Phillip Read (West Coast Eagles)
4. Richmond: Ben Marsh (Adelaide)
5. Geelong: Paul Koulouriotis (Port Adelaide)
6. Kangaroos: Shane Harvey (Essendon)
7. Hawthorn: Doug Scott (Box Hill Hawks)
8. Fremantle: Michael Johnson (Perth)
9. Adelaide: Pass
10. Port Adelaide: Jacob Surjan (South Fremantle)
11. Richmond: Luke Weller (Brisbane Lions rookie)
12. Port Adelaide: Josh Mahoney (Williamstown)

As you can see it's pretty light on in terms of natural talent wouldn't you say ?

We were quite happy with our picks and couldn't believe it when Surjan was still available............

 

[dreamkillers]

I would be pretty ********ed off if we don't put both Roo and Hart on the veteran's list.

Lefty, you want to have all those players on the rookie list but tell me how many rookie listed players make it at the AFL??????

AFC have history of picking up VERY good players int he PSD. So what if we only have 3 rookies to add. CHances are all 3 of those will be shown the door at the end of next year.

People forget that this draft is not very deep and its very even so really rookie list is more gamble than ever before.)

My only query with putting both on the veterans list would be if it meant having to pay one/some of the other players on your current list more to make up the 92.5%.

If you want to make a raid on an ex SA player or two in the next few years you would want to maximise the amount of money available then by using the vet list option to maximise the benefit at the time. You could run the risk by using the vet list now and also having to pay some current players who's contracts expire at the end of 2005/2006 more as they step up of not actually having as much money as you would like for those raids.

Mind you I'm only a Port supporter so what would I know.......

I want 4 picks in the ND and 1 pick in the PSD (assuming that Stevo plays on

On the PSD, apparently Crows are after un-named VFL player

and to think you passed on both Surjan and Mahoney last year........

 

[Lefty]

I would be pretty ********ed off if we don't put both Roo and Hart on the veteran's list.

Lefty, you want to have all those players on the rookie list but tell me how many rookie listed players make it at the AFL??????

AFC have history of picking up VERY good players int he PSD. So what if we only have 3 rookies to add. CHances are all 3 of those will be shown the door at the end of next year.

People forget that this draft is not very deep and its very even so really rookie list is more gamble than ever before.

I want 4 picks in the ND and 1 pick in the PSD (assuming that Stevo plays on)

Stiffy I would rather have a rookie anyday than pick up a Ben Marsh in the Pre-season Draft.

Rookies are all on a minimum wage - it's like a try before you buy system.

If they are no good then sure show them the door by all means.

However, by having six rookies it gives us six bites at the cherry whereas with your method we still get six bites but some of the cherries have lost their luste (ie past their "best before" date).

ROOKIE - DRAFT (2001/02)

Paul Thomas(Central District)
Nathan Bock (Woodville West-Torrens)
Ben Rutten (West Adelaide)
Martin Mattner (Sturt)

Just from that one year we still have three of the players currently on our list and almost all Crows supporters agree Ben Rutten is in First XVIII.

Also many Crows supporters have Martin Mattner in their squad of XXII.

Nathan Bock is still on the list and may still turn out to be AFL standard.

I don't want to throw stat after stat at you but you can see from that even from that one year (2001/02) we have benefited greatly.

Even if only one of the six rookies break through to the main list it doesn't cost the Crows much by doing it.

If all six rookies turn out to be duds it has only cost us six minimum wages.

Minimum wages Stiffy - thats the key here mate.

On the other hand, with an established player who is usually on a much higher salary the margin for error is much higher. I thinking of a Carracella or Nobel as an established player who would demand BIG wages and they are just as much a gamble as the rookies IMHO.

Simple economics, young Stiffy, simple economics.

Weigh up the Costs against the Benefits.

With my way the costs are minimal and if it comes off the benefits are HUGE.

Its like laying a small wager with a huge pay off at the end if they get up.

Doing it your way it's a big outlay for the same result.

I wouldn't want the Crows to gamble on say a Ben Marsh type player coming good because the odds are against him.

You ask me "how many rookie listed players make it at the AFL ?" and I've answered it above but here's one back at you "How many Pre-season Draft players have succeeded at their new club ?"

I reckon the number would be similar to the number of rookies that come through.

So why pay more when you can get the same result for less ?

Also I want 5 picks in the National Draft (8, 24, 28, 40, & 56).

If, and only if, Mark Stevens failed to come up would I consider partaking in the Pre-Season Draft.

Also Ben Hart would not be placed on the (Outside) Veterans List.

This aside, given our current group of players we will then be able to pick up 5 rookies to supplement our list for 2005 and not partake in the Pre-Season Draft unless injury forces us to.

Most players in the Pre-Season Draft are recycled duds who drift aimlessly from club to club (Richmond selected Ben Marsh at pick 4 in last years Pre-Season Draft need I say more).

I thought I'd post a few of the newer AFL rules for club lists for 2004 onwards and then show my make up of the squad.

Clubs may list any number of eligible veterans, with the number previously restricted to two. The percentage of the veterans’ salaries exempt from the salary cap will be proportional to the number of veterans listed, with the percentage reducing as the number of veterans increases. For 1 or 2 Veterans, 50% of each of their salaries will be outside the TPP, 3 Veterans, 33.3% of each of their payments will be outside the TPP, 4 Veterans, 25% etc; Once placed on the Veteran's List a Player cannot be removed unless delisted.

Clubs must have 37 players on their lists in (2004) and 38 in 2005 and 2006. The maximum will be 40 and no more than six can be rookies. The total list size, including rookies, cannot exceed 44 players.

The AFL will enforce a minimum list size of 37 players in 2004 and 38 from 2005, not allowing clubs to go into a season with fewer players, in order to fit more expensive players under the salary cap. I guess the days of highly paid duds like Darren Gaspar & Corey McKernan are somewhat numbered.

My list for 2005 would be as follows :-

Veterans = 1 (Mark Ricciuto)
Rookies = 5
Senior Players = 38 (including Mark Stevens hopefully)
Total Players = 44

Look Stiffy I know how much you hate rookies but I have 5 rookies in my squad.

I feel they are the future of any sporting club.

Take Man Utd - they have youth academies, as do our Aussie Cricketers, and even the Port Magpies have introduced a rookie academy.

Your not an ageist are you mate ?

I hope you don't let your anti-youth hysteria get the better of you.

For those feral supporters of other un-named clubs, that appear from time to time on this board, an ageist is a person "treating people unfairly because of their age". Sorry dreamkillers I couldn't help myself after your dig at us in the previous post.

"Only a Port supporter so what would I know" - you can take pleasure in that atleast your team recognises the value of youth. Only Gavin Wanganeen is on your (Outside) Veterans List whilst Josh Francou remains on your (Inside) Veterans List.

 

[Wood_Duck]

There is always a lot of talk about who is the best foootballer in the AFL at any given time. I rate Roo up there with Hird and Voss. He is my favourite footballer of all time. Deadset Champion.

 

[No 1 Draft Pick]

Lefty - the year you mentioned 2002 we picked up 3 rookies (all apparently would have been '1st round draft choices' according to Ayres - perhaps not in hindsight). All 3 still have question marks to some degree IMO

But the above year is an aberration. I cant remember any more meaningful contributions from upgraded rookies in the years either side of 2001-2002. Our success rate certainly isnt good.

However our success rate with the PSD is excellent over a number of years.

Edwards
Goodwin
Vardy
Hentschel

amongst others

These guys can try out with the club over summer and surely this minimises some risk associated with picking them up. Also wouldnt they also be on minimum (or near) salary? I cant imagine an unkown PSD pickup (like the 4 names above) commanding huge salaries on their first contract.

I would prefer to have at least one PSD pick up. With Fantasia, Turnbull and Stewart surely we use some of the resource advantages our club enjoys to beat 'market intelligence' and pick up a potential gem

 

[Crowked]

Expect Hart to be moved on the veteran's list as well which would give us a pre-season pick

Stiffy, why wouldnt they put them both on the vets list together? why the delay with Hart going on it. I would have though if they were going to put both on it they would have done it on the same day.

 

[baaaallllll]

You'll note that the poorer clubs (Bulldogs, Kangas, etc) always put their Veterans on the (Outside) Veteran List straight away because they are just concerned with staying solvent. We, as a rich club, shouldn't copy this unless it's to obtain a highly paid superstar.

This doesn't make sense to me, the poorer clubs would be financially disadvantage to have veteran listed players as percentages of their payments do not go towards the salary cap and the poorer clubs would only want to be paying the minimum amount of wages as possible.

I.e they would only want to pay the minimum 92.5% (or whatever it is) and not 92.5% + veterans salaries.

 

[Crowked]

Whats this about? inside and outside veterans lists?

I thought there was only 1 veterans list.